The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. When a person who has committed an ex officio decisionless offense, surrenders himself, or surrenders himself, before the judgment or disciplinary measure on the reported case becomes final and conclusive, the punishment shall be mitigated or remitted;

(Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act. According to the records, the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case in the court of the party trial, and since the criminal case against D with respect to which the defendant was in the court of the party trial is not prosecuted and it is apparent that he was in full prior to the confirmation of the trial, the defendant shall be subject to the necessary mitigation or exemption of punishment pursuant to Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act, and the judgment of the court below

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the ground that the above ground for ex officio reversal exists, and the judgment below is again decided as follows

Criminal facts

The summary of the evidence and the criminal facts of the defendant recognized by this court and the summary of the evidence are as follows: "In the residence of the defendant in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, on September 201, 2013" of the first criminal facts of the judgment below, "in the dwelling of the defendant in the defendant in Yongsan-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government," and "in the dwelling of the defendant in the dwelling of the defendant in the defendant in Yongsan-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Seoul, on September 24, 2013," "in the dwelling house in Suwon-dong, on November 24, 2013" of the 23 criminal facts, " around September 24, 2013," respectively, and the summary of the evidence is as stated in each corresponding part of the judgment below,

Application of Statutes

1. Article 156 of the Criminal Act and Article 156 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of fines;

1. Articles 157, 153, and 55 (1) 6 (Confession) of the Criminal Act, which are statutory mitigation;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act with the aim of having the defendant obtain criminal punishment D, is false.